DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**MeatteCen** · 08-24-2011, 12:33 AM

So, the receiver doesn't pay for it because the sender subsidises the receiver's costs? FFS, that's what we've been saying, the receiving person doesn't pay, the sender does! [rolleyes]
I said nothing about it being a "better deal" as far as total costs - but that it's fairer because one isn't paying for receiving calls or texts one may not wish to receive, only those that one initiates.

No you block head. Phone calls aren't always going in one direction. You must surely understand the concept of subsidised and hidden costs?

EVERYONE making a calls pays towards the cost of EVERYONE receiving calls. It's forced on you. No exceptions. In the US they don't hide the charge for receiving calls. Essentially the revenue stream is the same.

08-24-2011, 12:33 AM	#81
MeatteCen Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	So, the receiver doesn't pay for it because the sender subsidises the receiver's costs? FFS, that's what we've been saying, the receiving person doesn't pay, the sender does! [rolleyes] I said nothing about it being a "better deal" as far as total costs - but that it's fairer because one isn't paying for receiving calls or texts one may not wish to receive, only those that one initiates. No you block head. Phone calls aren't always going in one direction. You must surely understand the concept of subsidised and hidden costs? EVERYONE making a calls pays towards the cost of EVERYONE receiving calls. It's forced on you. No exceptions. In the US they don't hide the charge for receiving calls. Essentially the revenue stream is the same.
	Quote